Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I am living in North of Ireland but looking at a few jobs down south. Plan would be to travel down each day
Question is how does the pay work? Do I get paid in euros or pounds or does it depend on the employer? .
Is that not a red for Harte too??Under what rule?
Potentially a black if it was a deliberate pull down, but I think a penalty with no card was the right decision. I don’t think he was trying to foul, but he did, and no more than that.
Sorry you’re right it was a black I got the rule confused
But they can't ref at that level without passing the fitness test, which is a high enough bar to be fair, they also have the rules test, which again the pass rate is late 90'!
The inconsistency or consistency you are getting or looking for is impossible as the game has so many different variables to rugby and cannot be used as an example, the rules are straight forward and the game is played at a 10th of the pace , the referee is literally 2 meters from play, again impossible for our games.
You mentioned players learning how a ref plays his game and learning from his pattern of play, that is a must for any decent player or manager worth his salt to understand, if a player goes in blindly to how a ref approaches a game then I find that daft..
Some ref's give extra steps in a tackle, some blow for the slightest touch and others forget their cards and don't mind a little hustle in the tackle, other refs are very rulesy and you need to know that .
I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.
The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)
On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....
The keeper didn’t catch the ball. ONeill did.
Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.
To me it looked like it bounced in and out of his hands. Besides is there not a definition of caught in the rule book to allow for marks.
1. BOUNCE For a player who has caught the ball to play the ball against the ground with his hand(s) and to catch it on return to his hand(s) again.
or 4.7 - To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts.
I'd say that could have given the ref leeway enough to call it a 'catch / caught' in this instance - ball was loose in the air and keeper got it into his hands = caught
I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.
The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)
On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....
The keeper didn’t catch the ball. ONeill did.
Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.
Am I the only person in Ireland who construed this as charging?
O’Neill had his head down and was burrowing into the keeper. If he had the ball, it was charging. If not, it was an some special kind of illegal move that you rarely see, along the lines of tackling with the head.
It’s a free 99/100 and Martin Sludden would never make that same call again.
What point do you think he’s charging? To me he seems to catch the ball, turn, fall and then try and get back up, drop the ball and then try and pick it up. Yes he’s leaving forward but that’s from falling and from bending to lift the ball. I genuinely don’t see a charge. I definitely don’t think it’s given as a foul any more than 50/50.
Anyway I think the debate shows it ambiguous enough, so I’ll go back to at least it probably didn’t matter.
Around the 30 second mark on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/gaelic-games/61207999
His head is down in Patton’s midriff for a couple of seconds. I’ve absolutely no idea who had possession of the ball during those seconds. It probably switched a coupon of times. But whether head down with the ball, head down without the ball, I would make it the most obvious call among a dozen indecipherables.
I have seen the disallowed goal. I can’t see anything obvious as to why not was disallowed but at the same time I can’t see anything obvious as to why it should have been allowed. If it was off stripping the ball from the jeers hands fair enough but there’s no way Deegan could have seen it from where he was. Woukd he have been given the call by an umpire?
Am I the only person in Ireland who construed this as charging?
O’Neill had his head down and was burrowing into the keeper. If he had the ball, it was charging. If not, it was an some special kind of illegal move that you rarely see, along the lines of tackling with the head.
It’s a free 99/100 and Martin Sludden would never make that same call again.
